Harold Bloom: What Joseph Smith restored was "truly a Biblical religion."

[Eschaton]

4 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

My point is, you can't find creation ex nihilo anywhere. And the Hebrews believed matter is eternal.

 

Yes, that's true. 

[Eschaton]

3 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Heaven & earth = EVERYTHING. It's a merismus.

The ancient view of what "heaven and earth" meant was quite limited. It was really just this, which is a rather modest creation compared to what we know to be out there now. In terms of size the "heaven & earth" would be just the earth and sky, including a dome that they thought covered the earth, upon which the sun, moon and stars were fixed. 

 

 

Edited May 7, 2023 by Eschaton

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

How about some data to back up your conclusion? Here is what I need to evaluate your conclusion:

Irrelevant.

This is not science.

YOU like us, seek your own views and seek to make them with what you believe, like us, is said biblically.

There are no facts, only interpretations- Nietzsche 

Impartiality on this subject simply is impossible 

I love Bloom, but no one, even you, is infallible 

[Hamilton Porter]

53 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

The ancient view of what "heaven and earth" meant was quite limited. It was really just this, which is a rather modest creation compared to what we know to be out there now. In terms of size the "heaven & earth" would be just the earth and sky, including a dome that they thought covered the earth, upon which the sun, moon and stars were fixed. 

 

 

Yes, I know. It's a pre-scientific worldview. How is this inconsistent with anything I said?

Edited May 8, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[Hamilton Porter]

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Father Brown was referring to 80% of critical scholarship (articles, books, professional presentations?), which isn't even an accounting of critical scholars (people), let alone of other forms of scholarship or scholars. He believed that Ephesians was scripture, and didn't think that Paul needed to write it for it to be scripture. And he certainly valued the views of scholars whose approaches were not "critical." 

Here's what he wrote:

 

 

Awesome. I believe Ephesians is scripture too. Ephesians and Colossians are my favorite Pseudo-Pauline letters.

[Hamilton Porter]

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I thought she'd answer by now, but elsewhere she said this:

Interesting! I was in the right ballpark.

[Eschaton]

38 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Yes, I know. It's a pre-scientific worldview. How is this inconsistent with anything I said?

Well, you said "Heaven & earth = EVERYTHING" and you also referenced the creation of the "cosmos." But Genesis doesn't talk about "everything" or the cosmos, just an earth-sized snow globe that God organized from existing matter. 

[Hamilton Porter]

1 minute ago, Eschaton said:

Well, you said "Heaven & earth = EVERYTHING" and you also referenced the creation of the "cosmos." But Genesis doesn't talk about "everything" or the cosmos, just an earth-sized snow globe that God organized from existing matter. 

Fair enough.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I know what you mean (I had similar thoughts when I watched the series), but I'm also smiling at the idea of a Latter-day Saint discriminating based on Catholic principles . 

I am a book purist.  I want to see tv adaptations true to the character.  But I would also get annoyed by a wishy washy Catholic priest come to think of it as a character, if you want a wishy washy priest don’t make him a Catholic.  Just make him some sort of generic whatever.  I dislike it when they call someone a devout _____ but they are not like one at all.

Edited May 8, 2023 by Calm

[Hamilton Porter]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I think that is exactly what Dan means.

And, I think the point is, exegesis vs eisegesis. We all tout those parts of the Bible that we think supports our own belief and ignore the rest.

Eisegesis means reading stuff into the Bible. It has nothing to do with the Bible having different POVs within itself. You can read out different POVs.

[Jaydes]

7 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

What tradition are you of? RLDS or Communities of Christ?

Started off LDS, now am Non-Denominational. I would be a Rigdonite, but sadly they went extinct.

[Hamilton Porter]

7 hours ago, Jaydes said:

Started off LDS, now am Non-Denominational. I would be a Rigdonite, but sadly they went extinct.

Do you accept the non-polygamy passages in the Doctrine and Covenants?

[Hamilton Porter]

8 hours ago, Jaydes said:

Started off LDS, now am Non-Denominational. I would be a Rigdonite, but sadly they went extinct.

I was wondering what you make of this verse, and what represents the consensus interpretation:

Quote

When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; the LORD's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share. Deut. 32:8-9 NRSV

Mark S. Smith:

Quote

This passage represents an order in which each deity received its own nation. Israel was the nation that Yahweh received.

The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), p. 32.

 

[Hamilton Porter]

From FAIR:

[Navidad]

What does the Bible teach? What does the Bible purport to teach? What is the purpose or intent of the Bible? What is not the purpose of the Bible? What does the Bible confirm or not confirm by its intent? These are the questions that interest me. Christianity is all over the barn (a Mennonite idiom) on the subject.

What is the intent of the writers and the Holy Spirit in the Bible's content? I can only suggest:

That God exists.

That God and humans have a relationship. It is guide to that relationship.

It is a book that teaches truth, wisdom, justice, mercy, redemption, love, sacrifice, accountability, focus, betrayal, conflict, forgiveness, and grace.

It is a book written as literature - replete with styles, forms, and mannerisms including poetry, apocalyptic teaching devices, stories, parables, and historical narrative.

It is a book in which the Holy Spirit worked in a revelatory manner. How exactly? I can't grasp.

What is not the intent of the writers and the Holy Spirit in the Bible's content? I can only suggest:

A detailed plan of the eternities - either backwards or forwards.

Science, history, philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, physics, botany, numerology, or geography. It contains some; but not for the purpose of instruction in the same.

A history of religion, religions, or religious groups. It is not a detailed design or plan for the church, its ordinances, or polity. 

A detailed explanation of the essence, nature, existence, origin of God whether as the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost. The absence of all of that means it is reserved for us to understand in whatever is to follow in the eternities.

It is not a history of the gods, demons, human heroes or antiheroes.

To provide the answers to all the questions the human mind can conceive, concoct, or conflate.

I would suggest that those who look for more can always find in its breadth that for which they are looking. They then shout "Eureka" running from the bathtub of the Bible. That doesn't mean it was there, or ever was intended to be there. It is not that hard and it is never easy.

The particular Bible that I enjoy has only 1804 pages plus maps. Just this week I have been given a book to review on the history of the Casas Grandes River Valley here in Chihuahua. It has 750 pages. It is exhausting to read, but not exhaustive. The Bible is exhausting for some, but it isn't exhaustive either. Methinks we do better when we don't look for things in the Bible that we can only find by abusing its intent. End of sermon. Amen and best wishes! 😀

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

The Bible is exhausting for some, but it isn't exhaustive either. Methinks we do better when we don't look for things in the Bible that we can only find by abusing its intent. End of sermon. Amen and best wishes! 😀

Great idea!

I'll write letters to all the authors to find out every writer's intention!

IF we only knew who the writers were...

[Jaydes]

8 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Do you accept the non-polygamy passages in the Doctrine and Covenants?

It really depends. I don't take the whole D&C as a book as canon, because it is extremely corrupted, even excepting the polygamy. I take individual revelations on a case-by-case basis as valid, though. I consider the Lectures on Faith to be canon. Some revelations were of God, some were forgeries.

 

 

7 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I was wondering what you make of this verse, and what represents the consensus interpretation:

Mark S. Smith:

 

The oldest and most accurate manuscripts of those verses refer not to Gods but to "Sons of God" or "Sons of Israel".

[Hamilton Porter]

3 minutes ago, Jaydes said:

 

The oldest and most accurate manuscripts of those verses refer not to Gods but to "Sons of God" or "Sons of Israel".

So who are the sons of God that the Most High apportioned the nations to?

You're half right. Sons of god is the oldest (Dead Sea Scrolls)

Sons of Israel is actually the latest (Masoretic text)

Angels of God is in the middle (Septuagint).

 

 

 

[Jaydes]

2 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

So who are the sons of God that the Most High apportioned the nations to?

You're half right. Sons of god is the oldest (Dead Sea Scrolls)

Sons of Israel is actually the latest (Masoretic text)

Angels of God is in the middle (Septuagint).

 

 

 

The various tribal people and leaders that settled there. The Book of Moses also gives some hints in its usage of the phrase. No reason to assume it is talking about counterpart gods to the God of Israel besides faulty translations. especially when the gods that those people did follow were demonic false gods that the God of Israel commanded the destruction of, and when the God of Israel calls unto people of all nations

[Hamilton Porter]

1 hour ago, Jaydes said:

The various tribal people and leaders that settled there. The Book of Moses also gives some hints in its usage of the phrase. No reason to assume it is talking about counterpart gods to the God of Israel besides faulty translations.

So "the tribal people and leaders that settled there" is a good translation of bene elohim?

The reason the consensus of mainstream scholars are convinced it's talking about deities is because chief Canaanite God El and his wife Asherah had 70 sons, and if you look at Genesis 11 there 70 nations. So the shoe fits.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

The reason the consensus of mainstream scholars are convinced it's talking about deities is because chief Canaanite God El and his wife Asherah had 70 sons, and if you look at Genesis 11 there 70 nations. So the shoe fits.

Does you concept of mainstream scholars include Jewish scholars of the old Talmudic schools? I am also intrigued by your use of the NRSV. Which of the three or four different versions do you prefer? I believe the original version had a smallish group of translators maybe 25 or so.  Next question is out of ignorance . . . is it ok with the Brethren for a faithful Mormon to use whichever version they prefer? Sounds like you prefer one dead sea scroll text to the Masoretic text. What do you read from in Sunday School or Elders Quorum? I ask because I grew up in a KJV only environment and now at seventy something years of age I am back in a ward in a KJV only environment. When I get asked to read a passage in Sunday School or EQ, I just get stares as I read it. How does the Joseph Smith translation quote the verses you mentioned in Deuteronomy 32? How do you arrive at 70 nations out of Genesis 11. I thought the whole 70 nations thing was Rabbinical tradition, not really out of the text?

Isn't the Masoretic text, as in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia considered authoritative for the Hebrew portion of the Bible? I am not challenging you, just asking. As you noted the Masoretic text uses "sons of Israel." The version I prefer uses the Masoretic text, but updates it to a more modern and acceptable inclusive phrase -  "people of Israel" instead of "sons." I haven't looked at a Kings James Version in a long time. I will have to look and see what it says. One last thing . . . how do you determine that a "consensus" of mainstream scholars take this or that position? I am not debating, just asking. Take care.

Edited May 9, 2023 by Navidad

[Hamilton Porter]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Does you concept of mainstream scholars include Jewish scholars of the old Talmudic schools?

Probably not.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I am also intrigued by your use of the NRSV. Which of the three or four different versions do you prefer? I believe the original version had a smallish group of translators maybe 25 or so.

If the original is the RSV then I'm with you. I quote the NRSV because it's considered the leading scholarly version. But the RSV seem to be more faithful to the original.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

 

  Next question is out of ignorance . . . is it ok with the Brethren for a faithful Mormon to use whichever version they prefer? Sounds like you prefer one dead sea scroll text to the Masoretic text. What do you read from in Sunday School or Elders Quorum? I ask because I grew up in a KJV only environment and now at seventy something years of age I am back in a ward in a KJV only environment. When I get asked to read a passage in Sunday School or EQ, I just get stares as I read it.

The LDS Sunday School curriculum is very fundamentalist, though less so in recent years. I read the KJV in church and the RSV at home.

Church's policy:

When possible, members should use a preferred or Church-published edition of the Bible in Church classes and meetings. This helps maintain clarity in the discussion and consistent understanding of doctrine. Other editions of the Bible may be useful for personal or academic study.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

How does the Joseph Smith translation quote the verses you mentioned in Deuteronomy 32? How do you arrive at 70 nations out of Genesis 11. I thought the whole 70 nations thing was Rabbinical tradition, not really out of the text?

Sorry, Genesis 10. The table of nations.

As for the JST, no idea. I usually don't look at the JST.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Isn't the Masoretic text, as in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia considered authoritative for the Hebrew portion of the Bible? I am not challenging you, just asking. As you noted the Masoretic text uses "sons of Israel." The version I prefer uses the Masoretic text, but updates it to a more modern and acceptable inclusive phrase -  "people of Israel" instead of "sons." I haven't looked at a Kings James Version in a long time. I will have to look and see what it says. One last thing . . . how do you determine that a "consensus" of mainstream scholars take this or that position? I am not debating, just asking. Take care.

Here's my algorithm for determining the mainstream consensus:

1. Read a mainstream book (publishers like Eerdmans, Oxford, HarperCollins).

2. If the books says "mainstream consensus is X" then it is.

Edited May 9, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[Jaydes]

4 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

So "the tribal people and leaders that settled there" is a good translation of bene elohim?

The reason the consensus of mainstream scholars are convinced it's talking about deities is because chief Canaanite God El and his wife Asherah had 70 sons, and if you look at Genesis 11 there 70 nations. So the shoe fits.

"Sons of God" would be a good translation, and "Sons of God" would, in my view, refer to said tribal peoples. If it was talking about "Gods" it would say "Elohim" not "Bene Elohim".

Furthermore, we can refer to the Inspired Version of the Holy Scriptures, to which both the Lord and the Prophets Joseph, Hyrum, and Sidney gave their seal of approval and we see the following:

"When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance."

I cannot think of a single time in scripture when "Children of Israel" referred to a plurality of Gods.

[Hamilton Porter]

 

9 hours ago, Jaydes said:

"Sons of God" would be a good translation, and "Sons of God" would, in my view, refer to said tribal peoples. If it was talking about "Gods" it would say "Elohim" not "Bene Elohim".

How about Psalm 82?

1. God has taken his place in the divine council;
    in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

6.  I say, “You are gods,
    sons of the Most High, all of you;
7. nevertheless, you shall die like men,
    and fall like any prince.”

9 hours ago, Jaydes said:

Furthermore, we can refer to the Inspired Version of the Holy Scriptures, to which both the Lord and the Prophets Joseph, Hyrum, and Sidney gave their seal of approval and we see the following:

"When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance."

Just curious, is that the same thing as the Joseph Smith translation?

Edited May 9, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[InCognitus]

23 hours ago, Jaydes said:

Furthermore, we can refer to the Inspired Version of the Holy Scriptures, to which both the Lord and the Prophets Joseph, Hyrum, and Sidney gave their seal of approval and we see the following:

"When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance."

Joseph only changed eight verses in the entire book of Deuteronomy in the JST.  See:  http://www.centerplace.org/hs/iv2kjv/deuteronomy.htm   (That website shows nine verses, but the one shown for Chapter 18:4 is identical to the KJV).

I wouldn't take those few verses as a seal of approval that everything else in Deuteronomy didn't need an update.